Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2018 Supreme(SC) 1647

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN, S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.
Vineeta Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Rakesh Sharma – Respondent
Civil Appeal Diary No(s). 32601 of 2018 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15-05-2018 in RFA No. 301 of 2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi At New Delhi)
Decided on : 05-12-2018

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Biswajit Bhattacharya, Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, Mr. Shankar Narayanan, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Subhasish Mohanty, Ms. Jyoti Prakash Mohanty, Adv.

Conflict of opinion in Division Bench Judgments regarding the interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the need for a three-Judge Bench to resolve the conflict.

Headnote:
Interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Conflict of opinion in Division Bench Judgments
Fact of the Case:

The court noted a conflict of opinion in two Division Bench Judgments regarding the interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005.
Finding of the Court:

The court acknowledged the conflict and decided that the matter needs to be heard by a Bench of three Judges. However, it was also highlighted that the matter should be referred to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for the constitution of the Bench.
Issues: Conflict of opinion in Division Bench Judgments, interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, constitution of the Bench for hearing the matter
Ratio Decidendi: The conflict of opinion in the Division Bench Judgments and the need for a three-Judge Bench to hear the matter influenced the court's decision.
Final Decision: The court directed the Registry to place the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for the constitution of the Bench.

ORDER :

1. There is a conflict of opinion in two Division Bench Judgments of this Court i.e. Prakash vs. Phulavati, (2016) 2 SCC 36 and Danamma @ Suman Surpur vs. Amar, (2018) 3 SCC 343 with regard to interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005.

2. In view thereof, this matter has to be heard by a Bench of three Judge. Though we are sitting in combination of three Judge Bench, learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to Order VI Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 as per which the matter is to be referred to Hon'ble the Chief Justice and it is for the Hon'ble Chief Justice to constitute a Bench for hearing the matter.

3. We accordingly direct the Registry to place the matter before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constitution of the Bench.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document